Western Materialism

[TagliatelliMonster]

She would, but the tea is giving her comfort in a trying time. The whole notion of 'comfort foods' is party to this, really.

We are completely talking passed eachother and I feel like your bias towards my lack of religion and supposed "materialism" is a hinderance to understand my point of view.

I'm just saying that the parameters of what makes humans "happy" can be, and are, scientifically established.
People on your very side of the fence in this very thread in fact demonstrated that by posting the harvard study that did exactly that.

So yea... not quite sure what else to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We cannot quantify either. Unless by the nature of experience you mean tea won't give as much pleasure in a trying time as in a good one, but this is still a subjective judgement.

The harvard study that was posted, did exactly that: quantify it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't need base 10 maths, any system will do as the laws of mathematics are universal.

That is maths (or more precisely, geometry). A triangle is an abstract object. But the relations between the sides and angles can be studied just like physical objects can be. You can formulate hypothesis (in mathematics "conjectures") and you can test them. And in Math you can even prove them. Forms and numbers are fundamentally different from constructs like money, which really are invented and only exist by consensus.

I see it differently.
I can only repeat myself also. In the triangle, the pattern / relationship of the sizes of the sides are universal. Things are as they are.
Math is but a way to describe those universal patterns and relationships.

I can also use math to model non-existing patterns. And it would be perfectly internally consistent.
So to me it's not the math that is universal. It's the things in reality that it models.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not suggesting they can't. I'm saying that when they ponder these issues they are engaging in philosophy, not science.

Ok.
However.... here's the thing..
I don't require special interest, study or whatever credentials in "philosophy" to be able to make proper moral judgements.
I can't say the same about science. Without a deep dive into physics, I can't for the life of me understand relativity equations for example.

This is why I asked the practical question of what a guy like Krauss can't do or understand that he could do or understand if he were to care about "philosophy".

Of course answers aren't correct just because they come from philosophical discussion, all I'm saying is the discussion itself is needful if science is to be ethical.

"Ethics" isn't something that applies to tool. It applies to the one who wields said tool. To agents. Not to methodologies.

 

[sayak83]

Ok.
However.... here's the thing..
I don't require special interest, study or whatever credentials in "philosophy" to be able to make proper moral judgements.
I can't say the same about science. Without a deep dive into physics, I can't for the life of me understand relativity equations for example.

This is why I asked the practical question of what a guy like Krauss can't do or understand that he could do or understand if he were to care about "philosophy".



"Ethics" isn't something that applies to tool. It applies to the one who wields said tool. To agents. Not to methodologies.

Science is a branch of applied epistemology. The problem here is that Krauss has actually been taught philosophy (how to apply the scientific method to various epistemic questions) but since he has not been taught it as philosophy, he does not recognize it as philosophy. It is like saying " I don't need H2O as I have water"....

 

[Augustus]

I don't see why. Humans make ethical judgement. Science is but a tool to find out how things work.
What humans do with that knowledge is what has ethical implications.

You can use atomic theory to build bombs that take lives or you can use it to develop medical tech that saves lives.



Sure. But how is that the responsibility of a method of inquiry like science?

Does a hammer need a "life-affirming philosophy to underpin it for ethical reasons" also?
After all, you can use a hammer to build a shelter for the homeless, but you can also use it to smash someone's head in.

I think you confuse the tool with the human that wields it.

Science is also a series of real world human activities, often in an institutional context, using a range of scientific methodologies.

We can treat it as some abstract normative process of enquiry, but that would be less informative than looking at what happens in reality.

 

[Heyo]

Maybe because they come from the incredibly advanced Greek/Roman cultures, at that time.

And as an interesting parallel to the topic question, at that time there was also a conflict between east and west. (Rome being west and Greece being east.)

 

[Heyo]

This is easy to show.
You see "two" apples. Thus the number two exists outside our brain and is associated with those "two" apples.

"Two" exists outside of our brains but it doesn't exist "out there" in the real world.

Now which physical theory explains the existence of the "two" that is clearly perceived in those two apples? None. In fact physical theories liberally use numbers and associated mathematical elements and relationships to structure itself. Thus how the world works appears to presuppose and require the existence of mathematical elements and relational structures. Hence abstract entities exist and is not dependent of the physical world for its existence.
Suppose you deny this and say that the "two" of the two apples is an invented construct of the brain. Such things do not exist out there. Firstly it is hard to see how the mathematical shapes of objects etc. cannot but be entities existing outside our brain. Are we saying that the orange exists out there but its spherical shape is an invention of our brain??

The orange (or any real object) isn't perfectly spherical. Spherical is an abstraction, like "two" is one. Two oranges are real, "two" isn't.

Then maybe the orange itself is an invention of our brain? I cannot see how one can avoid solipsism if mathematics is denied its reality.
Convince me.

Mathematics is not real. You can't measure mathematics with a scientific instrument.
Shapes, forms, numbers and mathematics exist in a special realm, the Platonic realm. They are not real but they are also not invented. Money is an invention, a construct of our brains that only exist because we agree it does. Numbers exist by themselves, once you have a brain that is complex enough to think about abstracts, numbers will always be discovered and they are always the same for any thinking entity.

I have posted this link so often that almost anyone on RF who isn't new might have seen it multiple times but it is something we come back to every now and then: 5 Planes of Existence

 

[blü 2]

The mind is not the brain. They may be inseparable, but that does not mean the one is reducible to the other; nor, it seems, does neuroscience make any such claim. You can easily research this for yourself.

Understanding the difference between the mind and the brain

You can weigh a brain. Can you weigh your mind?

Either the mind is the product of the brain or there's no point in having a brain.

Which is a very big deal, considering humans devote far more of their bodies' resources to maintaining the brain than any other animal does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science is a branch of applied epistemology. The problem here is that Krauss has actually been taught philosophy (how to apply the scientific method to various epistemic questions) but since he has not been taught it as philosophy, he does not recognize it as philosophy. It is like saying " I don't need H2O as I have water"....

Owkay then.

In other words, this entire complaint about Krauss is just semantics?

 

[exchemist]

I asked a practical question.

What can't a guy like Krauss understand or do by not caring about philosophy / theology that he could do or understand if he would care about.
Your answer doesn't tell me what he could do or understand if he would care about philosophy.

Merely saying he would understand philosophy / theology doesn't clarify anything.

What he can't do is offer insightful opinions on either subject. (It was his opinions on philosophy that you were citing earlier.)

 

[sayak83]

Owkay then.

In other words, this entire complaint about Krauss is just semantics?

Let's just put it this way. There is a reason why scientists are still getting PhDs ... Doctorate in Philosophy.
Krauss may believe that the more theoretical generalist philosophy on open ended questions do not have much value, but would be mistaken. General philosophy is very useful where there are fundamental confusion about the thing we want to talk about. For example can machines be conscious requires us to have clarity on what consciousness means and there philosophy becomes important.
Even among strong atheists Denett is a philosopher of mind and Pinker nearly that.

 

[PureX]

Either the mind is the product of the brain or there's no point in having a brain.

Either procreation is the product of sex or there is no point to having sex. ... oh, wait ...

Which is a very big deal, considering humans devote far more of their bodies' resources to maintaining the brain than any other animal does.

And to having sex with no intention of procreating.

The problem with your assertion is that the mind transcends the brain in scope and purpose. Yet you are trying to define the mind as subservient to the brain.

It's the fundamental failure of materialism.

 

[Rival]

Ok.
However.... here's the thing..
I don't require special interest, study or whatever credentials in "philosophy" to be able to make proper moral judgements.

It sounds to me as though you believe humans are magical morally good creatures. We have seen over and over again that this isn't true. Especially in scientific endeavour.

You have imbibed cultural philosophies of ethics whether you realise it or not. If you believe slavery is wrong and women ought to be equal to men, you have imbibed modern Western philosophy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Either the mind is the product of the brain or there's no point in having a brain.

Which is a very big deal, considering humans devote far more of their bodies' resources to maintaining the brain than any other animal does.

The brain is a ‘product’ of the evolution of carbon based life-forms, and carbon is a product of nuclear fusion in stars, so if we follow that line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, your mind is a product of the Big Bang. The universe in a grain of sand, as Blake had it. Everything is everything.

This doesn’t seem to support in any way, your assertion that there is a clear distinction between external reality, and the consciousness of the observer of that reality.

 

[PureX]

Science is an amoral human endeavor, and this makes it a very dangerous human endeavor. It increases our functionality with no consideration for the effects that increased functionality will have on us. And as people jettison their religious ideals and even their respect for ethical philosophy, in favor of scientific functionality, it will become even more dangerous and destructive.

Because we humans need to put ethics ahead of our quest for ever greater functional control or we will surely destroy ourselves with it.

 

[exchemist]

Let's just put it this way. There is a reason why scientists are still getting PhDs ... Doctorate in Philosophy.
Krauss may believe that the more theoretical generalist philosophy on open ended questions do not have much value, but would be mistaken. General philosophy is very useful where there are fundamental confusion about the thing we want to talk about. For example can machines be conscious requires us to have clarity on what consciousness means and there philosophy becomes important.
Even among strong atheists Denett is a philosopher of mind and Pinker nearly that.

Indeed.

Philosophy also crops up in other scientific contexts. Interpretations of quantum theory are one well known case. For example this sort of thing: Relational Quantum Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Quantum physicists such as Carlo Rovelli certainly do not think philosophy has no value.

At a more mundane level, I find myself constantly having to explain the philosophy behind the scientific method to creationists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It sounds to me as though you believe humans are magical morally good creatures.

Not at all and I don't really see how you took that from what I said.
I see humans as intrinsicly moral agents, being social animals.

Do I require a philosophy course to be able to properly do moral reasoning?
I don't think I do.

You have imbibed cultural philosophies of ethics whether you realise it or not. If you believe slavery is wrong and women ought to be equal to men, you have imbibed modern Western philosophy.

Ok. Then what is your OP about?

Because in light of this.........................
It seems to me that western cultures are in fact the pioneers and defenders of things like humanism, human rights, etc, which would sit at the very heart of such moral philosophy.

On the other hand, it seems to be also the case that in cultures where importance of theology (=religiosity) is much higher, to the point of it even being intertwined with the authorities to the point of it being nothing short of theocracy, such humanism and moral philosophy is very much absent. To the point even where human rights are not just trampled, but even flat out rejected.

So how does such fit in your view of western cultures being far to much entrenched in "methodological naturalism"?

Something doesn't seem to add up here. Accepting that entrenchement at face value... doesn't it seem to lead to a morally superior society?
I am off course assuming that you agree that a culture that establishes, implements and defends things like human rights, is in fact morally superior to cultures that don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's just put it this way. There is a reason why scientists are still getting PhDs ... Doctorate in Philosophy.
Krauss may believe that the more theoretical generalist philosophy on open ended questions do not have much value, but would be mistaken. General philosophy is very useful where there are fundamental confusion about the thing we want to talk about. For example can machines be conscious requires us to have clarity on what consciousness means and there philosophy becomes important.
Even among strong atheists Denett is a philosopher of mind and Pinker nearly that.

Thank you.

I'm a simple practical guy and this was a clear practical explanation.

I freely admit that I'm one of those people who "hates" philosophers who insist on talking in jargon-ish riddles that seem neither here nore there when one isn't at home in such things.

 

[Rival]

Because in light of this.........................
It seems to me that western cultures are in fact the pioneers and defenders of things like humanism, human rights, etc, which would sit at the very heart of such moral philosophy.

On the other hand, it seems to be also the case that in cultures where importance of theology (=religiosity) is much higher, to the point of it even being intertwined with the authorities to the point of it being nothing short of theocracy, such humanism and moral philosophy is very much absent. To the point even where human rights are not just trampled, but even flat out rejected.

So how does such fit in your view of western cultures being far to much entrenched in "methodological naturalism"?

Something doesn't seem to add up here. Accepting that entrenchement at face value... doesn't it seem to lead to a morally superior society?
I am off course assuming that you agree that a culture that establishes, implements and defends things like human rights, is in fact morally superior to cultures that don't.

You seem to assume that 'moral philosophy' refers to a single philosophy. I don't know how educated you are on this subject but there are many moral philosophies, your Western one is just one of many. One facet of Western philosophy is that it believes it holds the keys to moral progress (Progressivism) and ties this to scientific 'advancement' (whatever this means) and believes that scientific advancement is in itself a moral good. It believes that we are on a mostly linear path from barbarism to civilisation. This is a product of the Enlightenment, which gave rise to such ideas as 'the Dark Ages' and the horribly backwards Middle Ages and leading forwards to an era of, well, Enlightenment. If at least some of this sounds familiar, congrats, you're a standard Westerner. You have taken in a largely Christian worldview mixed with some Mediaeval and Enlightenment philosophies, overlayed with a 19th. c. view of science = moral good.

I hope that makes sense.

It was the Victorians who really pushed scientific materialism and you thus exist in a Victorian tradition as do most Westerners.

None of this is a bad thing, but it is a series of philosophies from various eras which has given rise to both of us (I'm British) and we both cannot but help existing in this sphere. But because we exist in this sphere, and because of our training, we have been led to believe (because of Moral Progress) that things march on and become better, if only we keep up with scientific, medical and political Progress, and that this is somehow inherent in society and human belief.

The problem is that it's not, this is a Godless tradition based on Christian ideas of the coming eschaton where is the ultimate Paradise if only we do and believe the right things (here I suspect is your disagreement, but don't bother else @Augustus will get on to you ).

I do not have such a worldview.

Nor do most people on the earth, nor are most people materialists in the sense of physicalism. Most cultures have ancestor worship, for instance, and believe their dead relatives can guide them. This is such a common belief it outweighs or co-exists with Christianity in many cultures. Many also practice some kind of magic/witchcraft and so on, or engage in cannibalism, etc. Alongside this, many cultures don't care for technological progress as much as we do and certainly don't see it as a moral good. Orthodox Jews, for instance, are strongly advised not to own TVs or smartphones. Many Pagans, like me, see technological progress as destructive and more harmful than helpful. Then there are those who want to practice different kinds of medicine, or may be averse to Western 'pill-culture' and so on.

What I'm describing are various non-Western medical, moral, technological and so-on philosophies, and that's without mentioning the cultures which still have slaves (the majority), unequal rights, animal abuse, etc. and see absolutely nothing wrong with these things. They do not believe in Western 'Moral Progress'. To many people, life if suffering and no amount of forward march will change that (Tragic View, pre-Christian). They believe Western society is naïve, stupid, and over-indulgent.

It may seem like your Western view is the best, more humanitarian, but the problem is you're largely yelling into a void, or preaching to the choir. Either other people don't care or they already agree with you.

In short, your idea that humans don't need ethical training is wrong. We all have some, regardless of whether you believe they're ethically good or not (as with the cannibalism). You've taken this to such a degree that you believe it is innate in humans to want to stop suffering, be humanistic and insist on equality for everyone, but historically that has not been the case.

What is even weirder, tho, is that philosophical naturalism, materialism, physicalism, exist on the polar opposite side to these beliefs. This is where Nietzsche was coming from. There is a highly uneasy balance between the two, because if materialism is true then none of your Western Progress is meaningful at all, because we're just fleshsuits in an uncaring universe. This should, if anything, lead to the Tragic View.

The Second World War basically forced us to evaluate this and we came out believing that what Nazi Germany did was so bad we should never let it happen again, without ever really quite explaining why (because to many it seemed so obvious). So now our whole view is based on a post-WWII consensus of 'not that again'.

The problem is the rest of the world (See: Putin, Xi Jinping, pretty much every Arab leader) disagrees.